Why Bother To Have Another Presidential Election?

Wednesday’s Democrat stage-managed hearing before the House Judiciary Committee was mostly a forum for Leftwing academics to vent their hatred for Donald Trump and the 63 million voters who elected him President and thereby justify his impeachment.

Which is what made the testimony of Prof. Jonathan Turley stand out as a model of Solonian reason. Turley, who along with Prof. Alan Dershowitz may be one of the last sane liberals in America, asked these questions at the top of testimony: “We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” And then he answered them by saying “That is why this is wrong.”

Turley went on to label the current impeachment charade this way: “…such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment.”

Prof. Turley went on to knockdown the Democrats’ factual record on the case, stating, “Although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary. That comes from a complete and comprehensive record that eliminates exculpatory motivations or explanations. The problem is that this is an exceptionally narrow impeachment resting on the thinnest possible evidentiary record. During the House Intelligence Committee proceedings, Democratic leaders indicated that they wanted to proceed exclusively or primarily on the Ukrainian allegations and wanted a vote by the end of December. I previously wrote that the current incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case.”

He also attacked the Democrats’ allegation that the President abused his power, testifying, “The principle problem with proving an abuse of power theory is the lack of direct evidence due to the failure to compel key witnesses to testify or production of key documents. The current record does not establish a quid pro quo.”

Turley also dismantled Democrat claims that the President’s Ukraine policy amounted to bribery and extortion, remarking, “Even if the ‘official act’ were clear, any bribery case would collapse on the current lack of evidence of a corrupt intent… In my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge.”

Prof. Turley expanded his remarks rebutting the claims of bribery testifying, “Mr. Schiff’s sudden transformation into an originalist may be short-lived. The Framers did not, in fact, view bribery as some overarching concept of corruption… [I]t is not a case of bribery, whether you are adopting the view of an eighteenth century, or of a twenty-first century prosecutor. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view such an allegation from a prosecutor to be dubious to the point of being meritless… Both forms of extortion have a coercive element, but the suggestion is that Trump was ‘trying to extort’ the Ukrainians by withholding aid until they agreed to open investigations. The problem is that this allegation is no closer to the actual crime of extortion than it is to its close cousin bribery.”

Finally, Prof. Turley put to rest the idea that the President was susceptible to a charge of obstruction of justice for exercising his executive privilege to withhold materials and witnesses from Congress, remarking, “There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee…. If this Committee elects to seek impeachment on the failure to yield to congressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation, it will have to distinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review while withholding witnesses and documents.”

Prof. Turley’s incisive dismantling of the factual and legal structure of the Democrats’ impeachment narrative was impressive and important resources for House Republicans and conservatives fighting this in the court of public opinion, but it was his opening questions that were the important parts of his statement.

Those questions allude to a column he wrote for The Hill back in October wherein he made this observation, “This casual unilateral approach will make impeachment more likely to become an extension of politics. The framers worked hard to avoid the use of impeachment as an impulsive or partisan device. That is what is likely to come from this new informal path created by Pelosi.”

Professor Turley was right, if a President can be impeached because a majority of the House does not agree with his policies, doesn’t like his style, or simply hates him for defeating their preferred candidate then why have another presidential election? Why not just let 218 Members of the House choose the President?

The answer is because that’s exactly the kind of oligarchy the Constitution was intended to prevent. Fortunately, the Framers recognized that the legislature was the branch of government most likely to abuse its power and splitting legislative authority into two houses was one measure taken to guard against legislative tyranny. However, were our system to begin to devolve in that direction one could expect that what the authors of the Federalist Papers called “a remedy from the people” would be in order.


taken from:


Posted in Uncategorized, Constitution | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Climate and the Money Trail

The hidden truth behind the Climate Debate at COP25, Madrid. This article was first published in September 2019.

Climate. Now who wudda thought. The very mega-corporations and mega-billionaires behind the globalization of the world economy over recent decades, whose pursuit of shareholder value and cost reduction who have wreaked so much damage to our environment both in the industrial world and in the under-developed economies of Africa, Asia, Latin America, are the leading backers of the “grassroots” decarbonization movement from Sweden to Germany to the USA and beyond.

Is it pangs of guilty conscience, or could it be a deeper agenda of the financialization of the very air we breathe and more?

Whatever one may believe about the dangers of CO2 and risks of global warming creating a global catastrophe of 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius average temperature rise in the next roughly 12 years, it is worth noting who is promoting the current flood of propaganda and climate activism.

Green Finance

Several years before Al Gore and others decided to use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of billions of future funds to investments in often worthless “climate” companies.

In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate “Green Bond.” They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the major French bank Credit Agricole. In November 2013 Elon Musk’s problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed security. Today according to something called the Climate Bonds Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding. The creators of the bond idea state their aim is to win over a major share of the $45 trillion of assets under management globally which have made nominal commitment to invest in “climate friendly” projects.

Bonnie Prince Charles, future UK Monarch, along with the Bank of England and City of London finance have promoted “green financial instruments,” led by Green Bonds, to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects. A key player in the linking of world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired then by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about climate related risks.” That was certainly a bizarre focus for world central bankers.


In 2016 the TCFD along with the City of London Corporation and the UK Government initiated the Green Finance Initiative, aiming to channel trillions of dollars to “green” investments. The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg of the financial wire, it includes key people from JP MorganChase; from BlackRock–one of the world’s biggest asset managers with almost $7 trillion; Barclays Bank; HSBC, the London-Hong Kong bank repeatedly fined for laundering drug and other black funds; Swiss Re, the world’s second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP Billington and David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC. In effect it seems the foxes are writing the rules for the new Green Hen House.

Bank of England’s Carney was also a key actor in efforts to make the City of London into the financial center of global Green Finance. The outgoing UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, in July 2019 released a White Paper, “Green Finance Strategy: Transforming Finance for a Greener Future.” The paper states, “One of the most influential initiatives to emerge is the Financial Stability Board’s private sector Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), supported by Mark Carney and chaired by Michael Bloomberg. This has been endorsed by institutions representing $118 trillion of assets globally.” There seems to be a plan here. The plan is the financialization of the entire world economy using fear of an end of world scenario to reach arbitrary aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

Goldman Sachs Key Actor

The omnipresent Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs, which spawned among others ECB outgoing President Mario Draghi and Bank of England head Carney, has just unveiled the first global index of top-ranking environmental stocks, done along with the London-based CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project. The CDP, notably, is financed by investors such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, American International Group, and State Street Corp.

The new index, called CDP Environment EW and CDP Eurozone EW, aims to lure investment funds, state pension systems such as the CalPERS (the California Public Employees’ Retirement System) and CalSTRS (the California State Teachers’ Retirement System) with a combined $600+ billion in assets, to invest in their carefully chosen targets. Top rated companies in the index include Alphabet which owns Google, Microsoft, ING Group, Diageo, Philips, Danone and, conveniently, Goldman Sachs.

Enter Greta, AOC and Co.

At this point events take on a cynical turn as we are confronted with wildly popular, heavily promoted climate activists such as Sweden’s Greta Thunberg or New York’s 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal. However sincere these activists may be, there is a well-oiled financial machine behind promoting them for gain.

Greta Thunberg is part of a well-connected network tied to the organization of Al Gore who is being cynically and professionally marketed and used by such agencies as the UN, the EU Commission and the financial interests behind the present climate agenda. As Canadian researcher and climate activist, Cory Morningstar, documents in an excellent series of posts, what is at stake is a well-knit network that is tied to US climate investor and enormously wealthy climate profiteer, Al Gore, chairman of Generation Investment group.

Gore’s partner, ex-Goldman Sachs official David Blood as noted earlier, is a member of the BIS-created TCFD. Greta Thunberg along with her 17-year-old US climate friend, Jamie Margolin, were both listed as “special youth advisor and trustee” of the Swedish We Don’t Have Time NGO, founded by its CEO Ingmar Rentzhog. Rentzhog is a member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders, and part of the European Climate Policy Task Force. He was trained in March 2017 by Al Gore in Denver, and again in June 2018, in Berlin. Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project is a partner of We Don’t Have Time.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who made a huge splash in her first days in the US Congress for unveiling a “Green New Deal” to completely reorganize the US economy at a cost of perhaps $100 trillion, is also not without skilled guidance. AOC has openly admitted that she ran for Congress at the urging of a group called Justice Democrats. She told one interviewer, “I wouldn’t be running if it wasn’t for the support of Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. Umm, in fact it was it was these organizations, it was JD and it was Brand New Congress as well, that both, that asked me to run in the first place. They’re the ones that called me a year and a half ago…” Now, as Congresswoman, AOC’s advisers include Justice Democrats co-founder, Zack Exley. Exley was an Open Society Fellow and got funds from among others the Open Society Foundations and Ford Foundation to create a predecessor to Justice Democrats to recruit select candidates for office.

The Real Agenda is Economic

The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be.

In February 2019 following a speech to the EU Commission in Brussels by Greta Thunberg, then-EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, after gallantly kissing Greta’s hand, appeared to be moved to real action. He told Greta and the press that the EU should spend hundreds of billions of euros combating climate change during the next 10 years. Juncker proposed that between 2021 to 2027, “every fourth euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate change.” What the sly Juncker did not say was that the decision had nothing to do with the young Swedish activist’s plea. It had been made in conjunction with the World Bank a full year before in September 26, 2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others. Juncker had cleverly used the media attention given the young Swede to promote his climate agenda.

On October 17, 2018, days following the EU agreement at the One Planet Summit, Juncker’s EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Breakthrough Energy-Europe in which member corporations of Breakthrough Energy-Europe will have preferential access to any funding.

The members of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, HRH Prince Al-waleed bin Talal, Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio; Julian Robertson of hedge fund giant, Tiger Management; David Rubenstein, founder Carlyle Group; George Soros, Chairman Soros Fund Management LLC; Masayoshi Son, founder Softbank, Japan. 

Make no mistake. When the most influential multinational corporations, the world’s largest institutional investors including BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS line up behind the financing of a so-called green Agenda, call it Green New Deal or what, it is time to look behind the surface of public climate activist campaigns to the actual agenda. The picture that emerges is the attempted financial reorganization of the world economy using climate, something the sun and its energy have orders of magnitude more to do with than mankind ever could—to try to convince us ordinary folk to make untold sacrifice to “save our planet.”

Back in 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Since then the economic policy strategy has become far more developed.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Posted in Global Warming/Climate Change, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Ukraine documents show millions funneled to John Kerry’s family and Hunter Biden | America’s Watchtower

 I think most of us know that this impeachment is about the Democrats getting the President before the President can get them. To be more exact, the Democrats need to take down Donald Trump before he takes down Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney because all of the aforementioned have ties to the Ukraine that could be a little shady.

This post is going to focus on Joe Biden’s son and John Kerry’s family, for more on Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney and their ties to Ukraine please check out this post.

Donald Trump is being investigated for asking for an investigation into a person who admitted committing a crime while Vice-President while that person is being seriously considered to replace Donald Trump next year. New documents released by Ukraine officials show that millions of dollars were funneled not only to Hunter Biden, but also to John Kerry’s family. Here is more:

Michael Coudrey



Leaked documents from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s office indicate complex money transfers from foreign sources into the control of a “slush fund” owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden.

Michael Coudrey


According to the Department of Financial Monitoring (Counter-intelligence) of Latvia, the following sums of money were obtained from Busima Holding Limited (Cyprus) which is open at AS PrivatBank in Latvia:

View image on Twitter
5,378 people are talking about this

Michael Coudrey


According to the Department of Financial Monitoring (Counter-intelligence) of Latvia, the following sums of money were obtained from Busima Holding Limited (Cyprus) which is open at AS PrivatBank in Latvia:

View image on Twitter

Michael Coudrey


This describes the money transfer of

$14,655,982 and $366,015 EUR from “Wirelogic Technology AS”, and

$1,964,375 from “Digitex Organization LLP”.

Further, part of the sums described above were transferred to Alan Apter, Alexander Kwasniewski, Devon Archer and Hunter Biden.

5,087 people are talking about this

Michael Coudrey


BURISMA HOLDINGS LIMITED, during a period from November 18th 2014 to November 16th 2015 transacted 45 money transfers through MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC in the sum of $3.5M dollars.

The recipient of the money transfer is Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC.

Michael Coudrey


Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC is owned and operated by Devon Archer, the Kerry Family including John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr and Hunter Biden.

All of whom are also listed as partners in the Rosemont Seneca Fund and other affiliated Rosemont Seneca companies.

3,595 people are talking about this

I apologize for all the tweets in this post but this is just the beginning, there is quite a bit more and if you care to read more please check out the link above. If there was any doubt before as to why the left is so desperate to remove Donald Trump I think this removes all doubt…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

via Ukraine documents show millions funneled to John Kerry’s family and Hunter Biden | America’s Watchtower

Quote | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Whistleblower and the ‘Schiff-Biden Dossier’

In a striking parallel to the Trump-Russia “collusion delusion” fueled by the manufactured Steele dossier, we now have what I will dub the “Schiff-Biden dossier,” a manufactured tale of Trump corruption involving a tangled web of Deep-State swamp rats seeking to deflect attention from the real collusion and the real corruption.

The Russian collusion fantasy was designed to frame Trump while diverting attention from Hilary Clinton’s real collusion with Russia in Uranium One and using the Clinton Foundation as  a pay-for- play cash cow as secretary of state.

With the revelations by the Washington Examiner that the whistleblower worked for former vice president Joe Biden and that two of Adam Schiff’s aides worked with the whistleblower, we can see Schiff’s fable of a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, even the whistleblower’s initial complaint, to be a fraud manufactured by Schiff and Biden, to get Trump while diverting attention from the Biden family corruption from Ukraine to China.  As the Washington Examiner reports:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff recruited two former National Security Council aides who worked alongside the CIA whistleblower at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations, the Washington Examiner has learned.

Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff’s committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint.

The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported.

This mirrors the Russian collusion anti-Trump plot where members, indeed leaders, of the Intelligence Community such as John Brennan and James Clapper worked hand in hand with Obama’s DOJ, Obama’s FBI, and even Sen. majority leader Harry Reid to keep Hillary out of jail and Trump out of the White House.

Interestingly enough, Misko has a long and strong working relationship with Hillary Clinton, the Washington Examiner reports:

Misko, 37, worked in the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state’s policy planning staff under deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton’s top foreign policy official during her 2016 presidential campaign. …

Misko’s name surfaced in the Hillary Clinton email controversy when he worked in the State Department during the Obama administration.

In a Dec. 1, 2009, email released by Judicial Watch, Clinton adviser Huma Abedin sent classified information regarding foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her private email account.  That email originated with Misko, who wrote to Sullivan that he initially “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was sending the email again.

The whistleblower had contact with a Schiff aide, and Schiff had a copy of the whistleblower’s complaint before it was sent to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

Adam Schiff and committee staff had a copy of the letters before it was submitted to the I.G.  The New York Times published a report stating that Schiff “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint.”  As the New York Times related:

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election.  It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it. …

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer.  Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.  In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint.  The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff.

Schiff and his staff claim they had no hand in writing or editing the letter and did not coach the so-called whistleblower, even though his letter reads more like a legal brief written by a committee of lawyers.  Schiff, with  his track record, is not to be believed.

Schiff’s Ukraine fable is just that: a fable, like the Steele dossier before it.  That the whistleblower worked for Joe Biden and had an aide, now working for Schiff, who worked for Hillary in the Obama administration, shows that this is yet another plot to get Trump and protect the Biden-Clinton legacy.  This is not whistleblowing.  It is sedition.

While we’re at it, perhaps Schiff would like to produce a transcript of his secret meeting with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2018.  Schiff, it may be remembered, accused House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes of conspiracy with President Trump.  Conspiracies against President Trump and conspiring with Deep State players is okay in Schiff’s alternate universe.  As Chuck Ross writes in the Daily Caller:

The Schiff-Simpson meeting has come under scrutiny because of Simpson’s role in pushing the unverified Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.  Simpson has also been accused by some Republican lawmakers of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his interactions with government officials while working on the dossier.

During testimony to the House panel on Nov. 14, 2017, Simpson withheld that he met with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr prior to the November 2016 election. Simpson said that he met Ohr only after the election. But Ohr told Congress on Aug. 28, 2018 that he and Simpson met on Aug. 22, 2016 at Simpson’s request.  They met again on Dec. 10, 2016.

Ohr’s wife worked as a contractor for Fusion during the 2016 campaign.  And after the election, Ohr served as the back channel between the FBI and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who worked for Fusion GPS on the dossier project.

During the same testimony in which Simpson has been accused of lying, Schiff sought investigative leads from the Fusion GPS founder.

Schiff and Biden are both trying to hide their corruption with another anti-Trump diversion.  Schiff sent a House intel staffer on a trip to Ukraine during August 24–31, just 12 days after receiving the whistleblower complaint.  To do what?  To dig up what?  It is reported the staffer met with the previous president of the Ukraine, a friend of President Obama.

As reported by Gateway Pundit, Adam Schiff has strong ties to a prominent Ukrainian arms-dealer, Igor Pasternak,  who has organized fund raisers for Schiff:

In 2013 Ukrainian Igor Pasternak held two different fund raisers for Schiff asking for contributions between $1,000 and $2,500[.]

Pasternak was reportedly in and around the Ukraine at the same time that Vice President Joe Biden had his son appointed to the Board of the Ukraine’s largest oil and gas producer[.]

Oh, what a tangled web they have woven.  Schiff should be expelled from the House for his sedition, if not prosecuted for it.  And Biden should never be in the same ZIP code as the White House.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Posted in Barrack Obama, Deep State, disinformation, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, hoax, Politics, Scandals, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

You need administrator permission to delete this folder [FIX]

via You need administrator permission to delete this folder [FIX]

How do I get administrator permission to delete a file?

  1. Take ownership of the folder
  2. Disable User Account Control
  3. Activate the built-in Administrator account
  4. Use SFC
  5. Use Safe Mode
  6. Use third party software

The error ‘You’ll need to provide administrator permission to delete this folder’ in Windows 10 appears mostly due to the newest security and privacy features of the Windows operating system.

Some actions require users to provide administrator permission to delete, copy or even rename files or change settings. Such permission prevents unauthorised users but also external sources like scripts from accessing system data.

Many Windows users have reported that they have seen this error. So do not worry, in this article you will find some valuable solutions to solve your problem.

Steps to get administrator permission to delete folders

Solution 1: Take ownership of the folder

This is the easiest method and may suit most of the people in solving this error. In order to do this, you need to:

  1. Navigate to the folder you want to delete, right click it and select Properties
  2. Select the Security tab and click the Advanced buttonfolder properties
  3. Click on Change located at the front of the Owner file and click on the Advanced buttonfolder advanced security settings
  4. In the Select user or group page, click on Advanced in order to select which accounts are available
  5. Click on Find Now and then select the user to whom you wish to transfer the ownership to
  6. Right click on the folder and click on Properties
  7. Navigate to the Security tab and click on Advanced
  8. Under the Permission tab, click on Add and then click on Select a Principal in order to add your accountpermission entry
  9. Click on Advanced and then click on the Find Now button to list all the accounts to whom permission can be granted
  10. Locate your account from the list and click on Ok and save changes

Need additional info about how to take ownership of a file or a folder in Windows 10? Find out more in this article.

Solution 2: Disable User Account Control

If you took ownership of the folder but it still cannot be deleted, the next thing you can try is to turn off User Account Control as it sometimes might block permission.

Make sure to turn it back on once you have deleted the file:

  1. Search UAC in the Start search box and then press Enter to navigate to the Change User Account Control settings windowuser account settings
  2. At the bottom of the settings move the slider to Never notifyuser account settings never notify
  3. Restart your computer

Note: Once you complete your Task change the slider to Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer.

If you’re interested in how to manage your UAC in Windows 10, take a look at this useful guide.

Solution 3: Activate the built-in Administrator account

If the solutions described above did not help you solve the problem, the next thing you should try is to enable the built-in administrator account:

  1. Type in CMD in the search box and then right click to Run as administratorcmd-run as administrator
  2. In Command Promptcopy and paste the following command: net user administrator /active: yesnet user administrator active
  3. Type the following command: net user administrator <Password>, and then press ENTER, where <Password> tag should be replaced with the password that you want to set to the administrator account
  4. Restart your computer

If you’re having trouble accessing Command Prompt as an admin, then you better take a closer look on this guide.

Solution 4: Use SFC

SFC (System File Checker) is a built-in Windows tool that you can use to scan and repair corrupted system files. If system files are missing or corrupted, then Windows may not behave as expected and this might also be the reason for which you cannot delete the file:

  1. Go to Start and type cmd
  2. Right click on Command Prompt and select Run as Administrator
  3. Type sfc /scannow and wait for the scanning process to completesfc
  4. Restart your computer

scannow command has stopped before the process finished? Don’t worry, we’ve got an easy fix for you.

Solution 5: Use Safe Mode

Another good suggestion is trying to delete the folder in Safe Mode:

  1. Open Settings and click on Update&Security
  2. Click on Recovery and then under Advanced Startup click the Restart now buttonadvanced startup
  3. Click on Troubleshoot and then go to Advanced options
  4. Press the Restart button and on Startup settings press F4 to enable Safe mode
  5. While in Safe Mode, locate the file that you want to delete and try to perform the operation
  6. Restart your computer to exit Safe mode

If you’re interested in how to add Safe Mode to the boot menu in windows 10, check out this article.

Safe mode is not working on Windows 10? Don’t panic, this guide will help you get past the booting problems.

Solution 6: Use third party software

You can always try to use a third party software to delete a file in order to delete corrupted files that Windows cannot delete.

Quote | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Gets PERFECT Revenge After Obama Let ISIS Slaughter Unspeakable Number Of Christians In Middle East –

During Barack Obama’s time in the Oval Office, he made his disdain for Christians very clear. A perfect example of this is the provision in Obamacare where organizations such as Little Sisters of the Poor were forced to have insurance coverage which provided drugs which cause abortions. Being a Catholic organization, The Little Sisters of the Poor are vehemently against abortion and the drugs which can induce them. The Little Sisters of the Poor had to take the Obama Administration all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court ruled in the Nuns’ favor.

While Obama was President, his immigration policy toward Christians was equally discriminatory. As reported by Jim Hoft, from The Gateway Pundit, “Obama’s immigration policies showed a distinct bias against Christians. Although 10% of Syrians were Christians and were being murdered by ISIS daily, only 2.4% of immigrants into the US were Christians. At one point in his Presidency, he deported persecuted Chaldean Christians fleeing ISIS”. These Iraqi Christians, a group of 27, crossed into the United States from Mexico. For six months they were detained at Otay Mesa Detention Facility, and an immigration judge ruled that 12 of the 27 Iraqi Christians fleeing ISIS were to be deported. You can read about it here in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Getting into the statistics, a Pew Research Center Analysis examining the U.S. State Department’s refugee data found the following;

“From Donald Trump’s first full day in office on Jan. 21 through June 30, 9,598 Christian refugees arrived in the U.S., compared with 7,250 Muslim refugees. Christians made up 50% of all refugee arrivals in this period, compared with 38% who are Muslim. Some 11% of these arrivals belong to other religions, while about 1% claim no religious affiliation”.

via Trump Gets PERFECT Revenge After Obama Let ISIS Slaughter Unspeakable Number Of Christians In Middle East –

Quote | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Study: Undocumented immigrant population roughly double current estimate | MIT Sloan


Tom Relihan


The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States is roughly twice as high as commonly believed, according to new research from MIT Sloan and Yale professors.

The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely-accepted population figure. The study, published Sept. 21 in PLOS ONE, was conducted by MIT Sloan’s Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management.

“Immigration policy is a hot-button issue in the U.S. and the question of how to address undocumented immigrants provokes passion on both sides,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “Debates about the amount of resources to devote to undocumented immigrants and the relative benefits and disadvantages of various policies — including deportation, amnesty, and border control — depend on having a correct estimate of just how many of them are living here. The number sets the scale.”

The commonly quoted estimate of 11.3 million is extrapolated from population surveys. “We read that [the previous estimates] were based on surveys, but surveys may not be the most appropriate method for measuring hidden populations,” Fazel-Zarandi said. In the case of undocumented immigration, it’s particularly challenging, he said, since undocumented immigrants might have an incentive to stay undetected.

“It’s likely that undocumented immigrants are more difficult to locate and survey than other foreign-born residents and if contacted, they may be inclined to misreport their country of origin, citizenship, and number of household residents, fearing the legal consequences of revealing their status,” he said.

The problem is similar to those faced when measuring populations like intravenous drug users or tax evaders. “You need to use alternative sources of data for those. We viewed the problem like a big jigsaw puzzle, where we needed to fill the pieces. You’re taking the data from various sources and combined it in a logical way, but not all those pieces have all the information you’d like,” he said.

Given the inherent challenge of relying on survey-based methodologies to identify this population, the authors took a very different approach. The new approach is based on operational data, such as border apprehensions, the number of people who overstay their visas and deportations, and demographic data, including emigration rates and mortality rates. They combine these data using a mathematical model that estimates and track population inflows and outflows.

“Combining the different sources of data was a complex task,” said Fazel-Zarandi. “The key components of the model, inflows and outflows, are themselves comprised of numerous subcomponents. Each subcomponent must be aggregated from different sources, evaluated for its specific level of certainty, then incorporated into the mathematical model in a consistent way.”

Some of the data sets used in the analysis only recently become available, so the approach is timely. For example, 2015 was the first time that the Department of Homeland Security systematically collected data on visa overstays.

The study, which spans from 1990 to 2016, also includes estimates on unlawful border crossings based on newly available data. “We don’t know the number of people who cross the border successfully — we only know when people get caught trying because the Department of Homeland Security fingerprints every person who gets apprehended,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “From the apprehension data, it’s possible to infer how many people must have tried to cross the border.”

“There was significant uncertainty in the data, which complicated everything,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “We had to incorporate such variability in the modeling, which explains why we get such a wide range of possible outcomes.” The researchers ran 1 million simulations of the model. The results consistently came back higher than the accepted population figure.

“What we observed was that the upper bound of the traditional survey approach doesn’t overlap with the lower bound of the new modeling method,” Fazel-Zarandi said.

The largest growth in the population came between 1990 and the early 2000s, Fazel-Zarandi said, reaching a peak in 2007 and 2008. The number of unauthorized migrants has since leveled off and become stable.

“The results of our analysis are clear: The number of undocumented immigrants for each year is estimated to be substantially larger than has been appreciated at least in widely accepted previous estimates,” the authors wrote.

He cautioned that the new figures don’t indicate a sudden influx of undocumented immigration. “It’s something that has happened in the past and maybe was not measured properly.”

Policy implications. Having those better figures, Fazel-Zarandi said, could inform the debate around immigration in several ways. The larger population estimate means crime rates among undocumented immigrants are lower than previously thought.

“A common argument in favor of a tougher immigration policy is that people who have entered the country illegally elevate levels of violent criminal activity,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “Whatever the extent of criminality that is assessed, it’s clear that crime statistics be thought of in relation to a substantially larger population of undocumented immigrants. This lessens the risk in per capita terms.”

With respect to social services, the results could help inform the resource allocation of agencies and nonprofits that provide services to the undocumented immigrant population.

“What’s acceptable for a population of 11 million is unlikely to be sufficient for a population of 22 million,” Fazel-Zarandi said.

Source: Study: Undocumented immigrant population roughly double current estimate | MIT Sloan

Posted in immigration | Tagged , | Leave a comment